10 ms·

Posts here talk about the legality of this, that what they are doing is not allowed, or that they're doing something naively without understanding. But what is

by m463 2y ago

Posts here talk about the legality of this, that what they are doing is not allowed, or that they're doing something naively without understanding. But what is the goal? Maybe what goal to they think they're pursuing? This is hacker news, so I'm asking for an answer without political rhetoric.

blfr 2y ago
They're cutting their opponents' access to federal funds.
- golemiprague 2y ago
  Why those funds were allocated to their ops and not equally to everybody? If those government organisations were serving only one side of the political spectrum than something is inherently wrong with it.
  - joshstrange 2y ago
    > If those government organisations were serving only one side of the political spectrum than something is inherently wrong with it. Is there? I feel like there are many cases where this is not true. Supporting disenfranchised groups for one. If you are funding protection for a group of people you don't need to be funding their attackers as well to make it "fair", the funding of the disenfranchised groups is literally you putting your thumb on the scale to try and even things out. "one side of the political spectrum" is pretty loaded and it can mean a lot of things to a lot of people. If we are talking about "funding democrats" then sure, that's not good but if we are talking about "funding women's health" then no, I'm not going to play "both sides" games. The sad thing is we live in a country where a large number of people think that "funding women's health" _is_ "serving only one side of the political spectrum".
    - Capricorn2481 2y ago
      Unfortunately we're also talking about funding so our rivers aren't on fire. We don't have to speculate on what is left and right because even what is purely sensical is being completely dismantled. People should be fucking outraged but half the country thinks the EPA is "woke." We're genuinely fucked.
    - golemiprague 2y ago
      [dead]
  - moduspol 2y ago
    Welcome to the club of "right wing extremists."
    - theonething 2y ago
      and the club of left wing hysterics.
  - auntienomen 2y ago
    They were allocated equally. The goal is to change that.
    - liontwist 2y ago
      What does “equally” mean and how would that be determined?
- ahmeneeroe-v2 2y ago
  Also correct. These programs are seen as funding professional democrats who then vote for more funding
tyre 2y ago
The goal is to dismantle as much of the government as possible. Where possible, they can replace the existing people with their own people, then steer government contracts to themselves.
- riskable 2y ago
  The way they're going there might not be a government much longer. I really do believe they're that stupid. The entire stock market is premised on the stability of the US government. Without it all their wealth would disappear overnight. All the luxuries they love would cease being produced. They wouldn't be able to fly their private jets anywhere. In the past the rich could stockpile easily-tradable goods like gold in order to maintain a luxurious life even if their government collapsed. When it comes to billionaires that's not possible. The logistics of keeping and moving that much physical currency/gold/etc don't work out in their favor. If they keep this up they're going to lose almost all of their wealth as the world destabilizes. They're also setting themselves and their families up to be assassination targets for the rest of their lives (far, far beyond what they are already). There's people everywhere that will be severely impacted by their actions. There will be nowhere for them to go because the US really is the pillar of the world's economies.
  - disqard 2y ago
    They can operate this demolition op from the safety of their bunkers in NZ. All they need is a way to send messages to their "useful idiot" new college grad minions. True, instigating a global collapse might eventually get to them, but AFAICT, they just want to personally profit from US dysfunction. Plus, it seems like the rest of the world will simply bypass the US and say "you're not dependable any more, so we're just gonna pretend you don't exist". Ostracism (of the US) seems more likely than the entire world destabilizing.
    - bloopernova 2y ago
      It'll be just like the 1930s with a deeply isolationist USA. History sure does have an uncanny way of rhyming if not actually repeating. Something that greatly galls me is that the livelihood of tens of millions of families depend on the whims of people who think only in terms of profit. Government is not supposed to make a damned profit! The government's primary role should be to care for everyone, from entrepreneurs to people with disabilities. I'm not saying "handouts for all", I'm saying that the government needs to provide stability, a level foundation for all to build upon. It's like Venkman in Ghostbusters, in the ballroom: he yanks away the tablecloth sending everything flying except "the flowers are still standing!". The rich are the flowers, secure on their own foundation, calm with the knowledge that the guy pulling the tablecloth can't affect them. In other words, the new administration should be carefully enacting new policies not causing chaos by doing everything too quickly. Unless their goal is to destroy the USA, in which case US citizens will need to decide what country they want to live in and whether republicans are capable of delivering that.
novia 2y ago
The goal is to find government waste and to trim the fat. The goal is to make the US government lean, efficient, and effective at improving the lives of Americans while not prioritizing improving the lives of citizens of other nations. The view is that the government of those other nations should be responsible for taking care of their own citizens. The goal is to uncover fraudulent payouts, stop more from going out in the future, and to bring the fraudsters to justice. Overall, the goal is to do a thorough accounting of where exactly US tax dollars are going to, and to use that information to decide if they should keep going to those recipients in the future, to put it to a vote using congress to decide. [Political bias report: I'm a liberal who has read Rand and who does not agree with The Republican Party's views in the vast majority of cases. I have been listening to Musk and Ramaswamy talking about DOGE on X. I also follow conservative meme sites to keep up to date with the way they are thinking about things.]
- avs733 2y ago
  >The goal is to find government waste and to trim the fat. The goal is to make the US government lean, efficient, and effective at improving the lives of Americans while not prioritizing improving the lives of citizens of other nations. Lets be clear, that is not the goal - that is what they say the goal is and reality shows it is not. The goal is grift and theft adn destruction. Properly naming things is going to continue to matter more and more. Because no matter your bias or perspective, repeating propaganda is an act of propaganda.
  - novia 2y ago
    The question I was answering was > Maybe what goal do they think they're pursuing? and I was answering that to the best of my ability. I'm not just repeating propaganda, I'm distilling down the intent of the actors to the best of my understanding. No one can ever know someone's true intent, but I've done the best I can with the information I have.
    - giraffe_lady 2y ago
      You are repeating propaganda though. You're describing the stated intentions of this group, on their terms, as they have defined them. There's no particular reason to presume those statements are sincere, and in fact there have been other, previous statements that directly contradict them.
tpm 2y ago
It's a plutocratic coup, a takeover of the country by a small group of unelected men. The goal is to own and exercise power without opposition and without any rules.
- racktash 2y ago
  Since it worked so well for Russia in the 90s onwards, why not America?
jacobjjacob 2y ago
I would guess that part of it is to tear down what’s there so they can rebuild in their own vision. I think this is a desire that any engineer can understand- and also understand that it often has to be suppressed because it’s a common blunder. How many engineers have walked into a legacy project and their first instinct is to rebuild? Of course this is sometimes warranted, but almost always costs way more than anyone expects and doesn’t necessarily lead to a better outcome. Edit: I’ll also add that this mentality is more common in younger / junior folks, which fits the context here.
- disqard 2y ago
  I think the word you're looking for is "immaturity". It is not exclusively found in young people, as one can plainly see with the plutocrats in charge today. FWIW, even when it is justified in a software context, we understand that there will be a (usually large) business cost. When implementing this in a political context, there's no way to skim over the fact that there will be a huge human cost. But here we are anyway.
CPLX 2y ago
When reality doesn't agree with logic, question your assumptions. Why does an alcoholic crash their car and ruin all their personal relationships? Why does someone with impulse control problems make a self destructive statement? Why does a tech billionaire who is clearly intoxicated by his own power and a cocktail of legal and illegal drugs behaving erratically?
- nemo44x 2y ago
  [flagged]
stevenwoo 2y ago
Isn't this just the Dark Enlightenment that Curtis Yarvin has espoused and Thiel, Musk, and JD Vance have also endorsed? TL;DR - Dictatorships are superior to democracy, and quick executive actions that replace legislative responsibilities with the tacit endorsement of judicial and legislative branches are functionally the same. The foundations for this were laid when Trump got so many Federalist judges approved last term and the Supreme Court endorsed the anything goes if President does it theory. https://www.unqualified-reservations.org/2008/11/patchwork-2-profit-strategies-for-our/ https://www.unqualified-reservations.org/2008/11/patchwork-2...
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
khold_stare 2y ago
This will sound like a conspiracy theory, but this is the playbook of Curtis Yarvin, specifically the "RAGE" step - Retire All Government Employees. Some references: Watch the whole video (posted months ago predicting all these actions), but here is the relevant section: https://youtu.be/5RpPTRcz1no?t=1201 https://youtu.be/5RpPTRcz1no?t=1201 NYT interview: https://www.nytimes.com/video/podcasts/100000009910862/curtis-yarvin-says-democracy-is-done-powerful-conservatives-are-listening.html https://www.nytimes.com/video/podcasts/100000009910862/curti... Gil Duran did a lot of the reporting on this. https://www.thenerdreich.com/the-network-state-coup-is-happening-right-now/ https://www.thenerdreich.com/the-network-state-coup-is-happe...
- zzzeek 2y ago
  it's not a conspiracy theory, it's an actual conspiracy. it's all out in the open for reading / download.
  - khold_stare 2y ago
    Yep! That's why I said it _sounds like_ a conspiracy theory. Just hope it can be halted in time.
- nemo44x 2y ago
  [flagged]
bende511 2y ago
They are looking for The Cathedral.
ahmeneeroe-v2 2y ago
The goal is to overturn the system. The electorate is mad that nothing changes regardless of Dem or GOP in charge. They want something to change. They've wanted it for so long that at this point they're okay seeing it burn down.
- philjohn 2y ago
  Until it directly impacts them ... and then it's "I didn't think the leopards would eat MY face!".
  - ahmeneeroe-v2 2y ago
    this is irrelevant to the GP's question
- UltraSane 2y ago
  Until there social security checks stop coming. Then they will riot.
deckard1 2y ago
[flagged]
- baobabKoodaa 2y ago
  I'm not even in the U.S. what did I do lol
- CrimsonRain 2y ago
  [flagged]
sanderjd 2y ago
I don't think it's possible to answer this apolitically because their goals are political in nature.
mike_hearn 2y ago
The right is at present a coalition of conservatives, nationalist patriot types and globalist libertarians. DOGE seems to be a mix of two goals: 1. They think that the civil service has become not just openly hostile but outright dangerous to any form of Republican government, and therefore that taking direct control of the civil service infrastructure at high speed is essential to avoid being kneecapped by rogue federal employees again. They think that this happened during Trump's first term, and that if they don't get this problem under control then America has effectively become a Democrat dictatorship that does whatever the left wants regardless of who wins elections. They have a good reasons to believe this is a real problem they need to solve and fast, see Sherk for some egregious examples [1] but there are many more you could cite. 2. A genuine belief that the government is very inefficient and in particular that a lot of the waste is basically just funding the Democrats via various 'laundered' routes like allied NGOs that pretend to be politically neutral charities but aren't. Doing something about that is a good way to get libertarians like Musk and his allies on board. Everyone is in favour of government efficiency in principle so letting the libertarian types go cut waste is an easy way to build that coalition even if the other parts don't care about fiscal efficiency much itself. These two are interlocked. Poor performance and efficiency improvements are one of the legal justifications for laying off civil servants, so it's much easier to get the civil service under control if #resistance results in being one of the ones "optimized out" of a job. That's doubly true if the sort of NGOs that would hire them if they were fired are being defunded simultaneously. [1] https://americafirstpolicy.com/assets/uploads/files/Tales_from_the_Swamp-_How_Federal_Bureaucrats_Resisted_President_Trump_-_Revided_1.8.2025.pdf https://americafirstpolicy.com/assets/uploads/files/Tales_fr...
- shigawire 2y ago
  They kneecapped themselves by being a party of opposition with no constructive ideas for decades.
ranger207 2y ago
There's two parts to it. First, there's the reasonable position that the government is inefficient or has too much bureaucracy or regulation. If that's the case, how do you improve that? Chesterton's Fence says that all those regulations are in place for a reason, but it's reasonably to believe that some of those reasons may not be relevant anymore, or could be better written to allow for more efficiency. However, sitting down to figure out why existing regulations exist and how to get rid of them without allowing whatever bad outcome they were created in response to is difficult. If you have the general feel that a regulation is bad, why not just get rid of it? Or an office you don't like, or a committee that likes to say you're doing things wrong? If you've got the vibe that "this thing is bad", why do you need to prove it before getting rid of it? So it's taking things that are legitimate problems and trying to fix them based on vibes rather than data. Which, if some of the problems you're annoyed with are "it takes too long to build a building because the EPA wants data to see if there's environmental impacts", is it really a surprise you'd want to take that out without data? Second is the dismantling of the deep state. The deep state exists, but it's not a conscious effort in general. Instead, it's the typical aspects of institutional inertia, multiplied by the fact that the kinds of people wanting to work in government favor inertia more than in most private businesses. Of course the low level government bureaucrat at your local post office or whatever is going to want to slow-roll things and keep things from changing as much as possible; that's just the kind of person that typically looks for a government job and gets hired. Of course they're going to resist rapid changes from people that want things to be fixed yesterday. If your conception of the government is as an agent to execute orders, rather than as an agent to steadily administer regulations, then you're going to resent the people who don't respond instantly to the executive's desires FWIW I voted for Kamela because I think that the process of governance is just as important as the governance itself, and did not want Trump to remove the existing processes in this way. I can definitely see why people would want to change processes, and given the historical ineffectual attempts at changed processes I can see why people would vote for someone who promised to tear it all down, but I don't think tearing it all down is the best option. Although, I didn't vote for Harris as much as I voted for the most effective way to prevent Trump, but given the American first-past-the-post voting system that was the best I could do. https://ncase.me/ballot/ https://ncase.me/ballot/
tonymet 2y ago
Between Elon's stated goals, the systems under scope and my personal experience from state & local finance, they are performing a strategic efficacy audit of treasury spending. The US Treasury normally doesn't audit transactions -- they execute requests for transfers from other agencies and defer governance to congressional oversight. The GAO doesn't even audit in the intuitive sense. They audit that spending is being recorded properly, and for many agencies even that low bar isn't met. In other words GAO is okay with you dumping money into a hole as long as you count how much. DOGE is doing a practical audit of the spending. i.e. taking high-level spending principals from trump and identifying specific budget items to eliminate.
- tonymet 2y ago
  It's worth noting the difference between Budget & expenses since families normally blur the two. Budgets are the plans developed by the President and approved by Congress, and expenses are what actually get spent during the year-- and they vary widely. DOGE's unique approach is to use the Treasury as the "chokepoint" for telemetry so they can cluster and classify all of the transactions . Imagine a massive microservices platform with 10k services and you want to know which ones are viable ( cost/benefit). Rather than survey all 10k, you would surveil a router or LB chokepoint to measure the input & output of all 10k services. That seems to be their approach with the treasury.
  - kelnos 2y ago
    One minor nit: while presidents do usually present their version of the ideal budget, Congress is responsible for developing the budget, and what they pass can sometimes look pretty different from what the president proposes.
    - tonymet 2y ago
      Good point
- Trasmatta 2y ago
  This is propaganda.
TacticalCoder 2y ago
[dead]
T-A 2y ago
Ever seen "Johnny English Strikes Again"? I'm sure Musk did, and is now implementing Jason Volta's plan as just retribution for the not-so-subtle reference hidden in the villain's electric name.
valbaca 2y ago
They're literally accelerationists: They're shooting the gov in the face, so they can enact more emergency powers, and then it's one step to pure, raw fascism. > I'm asking for an answer without political rhetoric You need to start caring about politics real fast if you care at all.
- DustinBrett 2y ago
  You got your rhetoric as (not) requested.
- steve_adams_86 2y ago
  There is arguably no non-political angle to this. I’m not sure how you’d describe what appears to be happening without it seeming biased. From here in Canada it looks a lot like the fascist takeovers I’ve read about since middle school. The playbook is bizarrely tight to Hitler, Mussolini, hints of Stalin, etc. I didn’t expect this in my lifetime. Or rather, I imaged I’d see it coming sooner.
  - theonething 2y ago
    Hyperbolic hysterics. From here, that's what I observe.
    - steve_adams_86 2y ago
      What would seem like a reasonable, measured response right now? It’s worth adding here too that Musk’s own purported ambitions are entirely political. He has even gone so far as to claim he has given up on democracy. Ironically, he also claimed this election was crucial. DOGE is a politically motivated program. This is all worthy of intense scrutiny and concern
      - theonething 2y ago
        > What would seem like a reasonable, measured response right now? A response to what? I fully support kicking out illegal immigrants and dismantling government agencies that are only wasting taxpayer dollars. When I called out hyperbolic hysterics I mean things like what you said here: "The playbook is bizarrely tight to Hitler, Mussolini, hints of Stalin" These people murdered/executed millions of innocent people. Has Trump come close to executing even one person? That's why it's hard for me to take the Left seriously when they engage in hysterics like this.
TheAlchemist 2y ago
They are playing post-URSS playbook, at 10x the speed. It's fascinating that people still wonder what kind of goals they may be pursuing. The President launched a meme coin 48 hours before being sworn in !!! Even crypto scammers were outraged at the audacity of the scam.
cco 2y ago
> But what is the goal? Maybe what goal to they think they're pursuing? This is hacker news, so I'm asking for an answer without political rhetoric. I'm a bit confused because the stated goals, either the "digestible" ones or the ones they've stated outside of mainstream media, are all political in nature. How could you get an answer about the motivation and goals of this behavior that isn't "political"?
Clubber 2y ago
Cut spending.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
roland35 2y ago
Look up Curtis Yarvin. This is all his libertarian tech bro fantasy come to life
- donutpepperoni 2y ago
  Made it easy for anybody who makes it this far: 1. Part one on Curtis Yarvin: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mYrPNvVhKLU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mYrPNvVhKLU 2. Part two: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rpEg4LS3CT0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rpEg4LS3CT0 No affiliation with the show just thought the episodes were enlightening.
  - roland35 2y ago
    Behind the Bastards is a great podcast. I think they did a good job bringing this guy's viewpoints to the forefront here, and explaining the context.
Culonavirus 2y ago
> This is hacker news, so I'm asking for an answer without political rhetoric LMAO. That's like going to Reddit and asking for relationship advice.
jrflowers 2y ago
I love this post. “Explain what is going on with the government without mentioning politics. If the reality is that current events and the people involved in them are driven by ideology, invent a version of reality wherein they are not” is like walking into a Sephora, opening up the folding chair that you’re carrying, and loudly demanding the catfish dinner and a beer.
theonething 2y ago
> This is hacker news, so I'm asking for an answer without political rhetoric. Sadly, based on the comments here and elsewhere, HN is not immune to political rhetoric.
pharrington 2y ago
Elon Musk's goal is to gain as much power and control as possible. Line go up.
alluro2 2y ago
Since the goals are not clear for now, let's give Trump and Elon the benefit of the doubt, that what they're doing is from the good of their hearts, for the benefit of all the American people. It's not like they're openly corrupt, narcissistic egomaniacs with history of screwing up people for their personal gain or something. Up till now, especially Trump, they've made huge strides in bettering the country and wellbeing of the people, let's let them cook.

by m463 2y ago

blfr 2y ago

They're cutting their opponents' access to federal funds.

golemiprague 2y ago
Why those funds were allocated to their ops and not equally to everybody? If those government organisations were serving only one side of the political spectrum than something is inherently wrong with it.
- joshstrange 2y ago
  > If those government organisations were serving only one side of the political spectrum than something is inherently wrong with it. Is there? I feel like there are many cases where this is not true. Supporting disenfranchised groups for one. If you are funding protection for a group of people you don't need to be funding their attackers as well to make it "fair", the funding of the disenfranchised groups is literally you putting your thumb on the scale to try and even things out. "one side of the political spectrum" is pretty loaded and it can mean a lot of things to a lot of people. If we are talking about "funding democrats" then sure, that's not good but if we are talking about "funding women's health" then no, I'm not going to play "both sides" games. The sad thing is we live in a country where a large number of people think that "funding women's health" _is_ "serving only one side of the political spectrum".
  - Capricorn2481 2y ago
    Unfortunately we're also talking about funding so our rivers aren't on fire. We don't have to speculate on what is left and right because even what is purely sensical is being completely dismantled. People should be fucking outraged but half the country thinks the EPA is "woke." We're genuinely fucked.
  - golemiprague 2y ago
    [dead]
- moduspol 2y ago
  Welcome to the club of "right wing extremists."
  - theonething 2y ago
    and the club of left wing hysterics.
- auntienomen 2y ago
  They were allocated equally. The goal is to change that.
  - liontwist 2y ago
    What does “equally” mean and how would that be determined?
ahmeneeroe-v2 2y ago
Also correct. These programs are seen as funding professional democrats who then vote for more funding

tyre 2y ago

The goal is to dismantle as much of the government as possible. Where possible, they can replace the existing people with their own people, then steer government contracts to themselves.

riskable 2y ago
The way they're going there might not be a government much longer. I really do believe they're that stupid. The entire stock market is premised on the stability of the US government. Without it all their wealth would disappear overnight. All the luxuries they love would cease being produced. They wouldn't be able to fly their private jets anywhere. In the past the rich could stockpile easily-tradable goods like gold in order to maintain a luxurious life even if their government collapsed. When it comes to billionaires that's not possible. The logistics of keeping and moving that much physical currency/gold/etc don't work out in their favor. If they keep this up they're going to lose almost all of their wealth as the world destabilizes. They're also setting themselves and their families up to be assassination targets for the rest of their lives (far, far beyond what they are already). There's people everywhere that will be severely impacted by their actions. There will be nowhere for them to go because the US really is the pillar of the world's economies.
- disqard 2y ago
  They can operate this demolition op from the safety of their bunkers in NZ. All they need is a way to send messages to their "useful idiot" new college grad minions. True, instigating a global collapse might eventually get to them, but AFAICT, they just want to personally profit from US dysfunction. Plus, it seems like the rest of the world will simply bypass the US and say "you're not dependable any more, so we're just gonna pretend you don't exist". Ostracism (of the US) seems more likely than the entire world destabilizing.
  - bloopernova 2y ago
    It'll be just like the 1930s with a deeply isolationist USA. History sure does have an uncanny way of rhyming if not actually repeating. Something that greatly galls me is that the livelihood of tens of millions of families depend on the whims of people who think only in terms of profit. Government is not supposed to make a damned profit! The government's primary role should be to care for everyone, from entrepreneurs to people with disabilities. I'm not saying "handouts for all", I'm saying that the government needs to provide stability, a level foundation for all to build upon. It's like Venkman in Ghostbusters, in the ballroom: he yanks away the tablecloth sending everything flying except "the flowers are still standing!". The rich are the flowers, secure on their own foundation, calm with the knowledge that the guy pulling the tablecloth can't affect them. In other words, the new administration should be carefully enacting new policies not causing chaos by doing everything too quickly. Unless their goal is to destroy the USA, in which case US citizens will need to decide what country they want to live in and whether republicans are capable of delivering that.

novia 2y ago

The goal is to find government waste and to trim the fat. The goal is to make the US government lean, efficient, and effective at improving the lives of Americans while not prioritizing improving the lives of citizens of other nations. The view is that the government of those other nations should be responsible for taking care of their own citizens. The goal is to uncover fraudulent payouts, stop more from going out in the future, and to bring the fraudsters to justice. Overall, the goal is to do a thorough accounting of where exactly US tax dollars are going to, and to use that information to decide if they should keep going to those recipients in the future, to put it to a vote using congress to decide. [Political bias report: I'm a liberal who has read Rand and who does not agree with The Republican Party's views in the vast majority of cases. I have been listening to Musk and Ramaswamy talking about DOGE on X. I also follow conservative meme sites to keep up to date with the way they are thinking about things.]

avs733 2y ago
>The goal is to find government waste and to trim the fat. The goal is to make the US government lean, efficient, and effective at improving the lives of Americans while not prioritizing improving the lives of citizens of other nations. Lets be clear, that is not the goal - that is what they say the goal is and reality shows it is not. The goal is grift and theft adn destruction. Properly naming things is going to continue to matter more and more. Because no matter your bias or perspective, repeating propaganda is an act of propaganda.
- novia 2y ago
  The question I was answering was > Maybe what goal do they think they're pursuing? and I was answering that to the best of my ability. I'm not just repeating propaganda, I'm distilling down the intent of the actors to the best of my understanding. No one can ever know someone's true intent, but I've done the best I can with the information I have.
  - giraffe_lady 2y ago
    You are repeating propaganda though. You're describing the stated intentions of this group, on their terms, as they have defined them. There's no particular reason to presume those statements are sincere, and in fact there have been other, previous statements that directly contradict them.

tpm 2y ago

It's a plutocratic coup, a takeover of the country by a small group of unelected men. The goal is to own and exercise power without opposition and without any rules.

racktash 2y ago
Since it worked so well for Russia in the 90s onwards, why not America?

jacobjjacob 2y ago

I would guess that part of it is to tear down what’s there so they can rebuild in their own vision. I think this is a desire that any engineer can understand- and also understand that it often has to be suppressed because it’s a common blunder. How many engineers have walked into a legacy project and their first instinct is to rebuild? Of course this is sometimes warranted, but almost always costs way more than anyone expects and doesn’t necessarily lead to a better outcome. Edit: I’ll also add that this mentality is more common in younger / junior folks, which fits the context here.

disqard 2y ago
I think the word you're looking for is "immaturity". It is not exclusively found in young people, as one can plainly see with the plutocrats in charge today. FWIW, even when it is justified in a software context, we understand that there will be a (usually large) business cost. When implementing this in a political context, there's no way to skim over the fact that there will be a huge human cost. But here we are anyway.

CPLX 2y ago

When reality doesn't agree with logic, question your assumptions. Why does an alcoholic crash their car and ruin all their personal relationships? Why does someone with impulse control problems make a self destructive statement? Why does a tech billionaire who is clearly intoxicated by his own power and a cocktail of legal and illegal drugs behaving erratically?

nemo44x 2y ago
[flagged]

stevenwoo 2y ago

Isn't this just the Dark Enlightenment that Curtis Yarvin has espoused and Thiel, Musk, and JD Vance have also endorsed? TL;DR - Dictatorships are superior to democracy, and quick executive actions that replace legislative responsibilities with the tacit endorsement of judicial and legislative branches are functionally the same. The foundations for this were laid when Trump got so many Federalist judges approved last term and the Supreme Court endorsed the anything goes if President does it theory. https://www.unqualified-reservations.org/2008/11/patchwork-2-profit-strategies-for-our/ https://www.unqualified-reservations.org/2008/11/patchwork-2...

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]

khold_stare 2y ago

This will sound like a conspiracy theory, but this is the playbook of Curtis Yarvin, specifically the "RAGE" step - Retire All Government Employees. Some references: Watch the whole video (posted months ago predicting all these actions), but here is the relevant section: https://youtu.be/5RpPTRcz1no?t=1201 https://youtu.be/5RpPTRcz1no?t=1201 NYT interview: https://www.nytimes.com/video/podcasts/100000009910862/curtis-yarvin-says-democracy-is-done-powerful-conservatives-are-listening.html https://www.nytimes.com/video/podcasts/100000009910862/curti... Gil Duran did a lot of the reporting on this. https://www.thenerdreich.com/the-network-state-coup-is-happening-right-now/ https://www.thenerdreich.com/the-network-state-coup-is-happe...

zzzeek 2y ago
it's not a conspiracy theory, it's an actual conspiracy. it's all out in the open for reading / download.
- khold_stare 2y ago
  Yep! That's why I said it _sounds like_ a conspiracy theory. Just hope it can be halted in time.
nemo44x 2y ago
[flagged]

bende511 2y ago

They are looking for The Cathedral.

ahmeneeroe-v2 2y ago

The goal is to overturn the system. The electorate is mad that nothing changes regardless of Dem or GOP in charge. They want something to change. They've wanted it for so long that at this point they're okay seeing it burn down.

philjohn 2y ago
Until it directly impacts them ... and then it's "I didn't think the leopards would eat MY face!".
- ahmeneeroe-v2 2y ago
  this is irrelevant to the GP's question
UltraSane 2y ago
Until there social security checks stop coming. Then they will riot.

deckard1 2y ago

[flagged]

baobabKoodaa 2y ago
I'm not even in the U.S. what did I do lol
CrimsonRain 2y ago
[flagged]

sanderjd 2y ago

I don't think it's possible to answer this apolitically because their goals are political in nature.

mike_hearn 2y ago

The right is at present a coalition of conservatives, nationalist patriot types and globalist libertarians. DOGE seems to be a mix of two goals: 1. They think that the civil service has become not just openly hostile but outright dangerous to any form of Republican government, and therefore that taking direct control of the civil service infrastructure at high speed is essential to avoid being kneecapped by rogue federal employees again. They think that this happened during Trump's first term, and that if they don't get this problem under control then America has effectively become a Democrat dictatorship that does whatever the left wants regardless of who wins elections. They have a good reasons to believe this is a real problem they need to solve and fast, see Sherk for some egregious examples [1] but there are many more you could cite. 2. A genuine belief that the government is very inefficient and in particular that a lot of the waste is basically just funding the Democrats via various 'laundered' routes like allied NGOs that pretend to be politically neutral charities but aren't. Doing something about that is a good way to get libertarians like Musk and his allies on board. Everyone is in favour of government efficiency in principle so letting the libertarian types go cut waste is an easy way to build that coalition even if the other parts don't care about fiscal efficiency much itself. These two are interlocked. Poor performance and efficiency improvements are one of the legal justifications for laying off civil servants, so it's much easier to get the civil service under control if #resistance results in being one of the ones "optimized out" of a job. That's doubly true if the sort of NGOs that would hire them if they were fired are being defunded simultaneously. [1] https://americafirstpolicy.com/assets/uploads/files/Tales_from_the_Swamp-_How_Federal_Bureaucrats_Resisted_President_Trump_-_Revided_1.8.2025.pdf https://americafirstpolicy.com/assets/uploads/files/Tales_fr...

shigawire 2y ago
They kneecapped themselves by being a party of opposition with no constructive ideas for decades.

ranger207 2y ago

There's two parts to it. First, there's the reasonable position that the government is inefficient or has too much bureaucracy or regulation. If that's the case, how do you improve that? Chesterton's Fence says that all those regulations are in place for a reason, but it's reasonably to believe that some of those reasons may not be relevant anymore, or could be better written to allow for more efficiency. However, sitting down to figure out why existing regulations exist and how to get rid of them without allowing whatever bad outcome they were created in response to is difficult. If you have the general feel that a regulation is bad, why not just get rid of it? Or an office you don't like, or a committee that likes to say you're doing things wrong? If you've got the vibe that "this thing is bad", why do you need to prove it before getting rid of it? So it's taking things that are legitimate problems and trying to fix them based on vibes rather than data. Which, if some of the problems you're annoyed with are "it takes too long to build a building because the EPA wants data to see if there's environmental impacts", is it really a surprise you'd want to take that out without data? Second is the dismantling of the deep state. The deep state exists, but it's not a conscious effort in general. Instead, it's the typical aspects of institutional inertia, multiplied by the fact that the kinds of people wanting to work in government favor inertia more than in most private businesses. Of course the low level government bureaucrat at your local post office or whatever is going to want to slow-roll things and keep things from changing as much as possible; that's just the kind of person that typically looks for a government job and gets hired. Of course they're going to resist rapid changes from people that want things to be fixed yesterday. If your conception of the government is as an agent to execute orders, rather than as an agent to steadily administer regulations, then you're going to resent the people who don't respond instantly to the executive's desires FWIW I voted for Kamela because I think that the process of governance is just as important as the governance itself, and did not want Trump to remove the existing processes in this way. I can definitely see why people would want to change processes, and given the historical ineffectual attempts at changed processes I can see why people would vote for someone who promised to tear it all down, but I don't think tearing it all down is the best option. Although, I didn't vote for Harris as much as I voted for the most effective way to prevent Trump, but given the American first-past-the-post voting system that was the best I could do. https://ncase.me/ballot/ https://ncase.me/ballot/

tonymet 2y ago

Between Elon's stated goals, the systems under scope and my personal experience from state & local finance, they are performing a strategic efficacy audit of treasury spending. The US Treasury normally doesn't audit transactions -- they execute requests for transfers from other agencies and defer governance to congressional oversight. The GAO doesn't even audit in the intuitive sense. They audit that spending is being recorded properly, and for many agencies even that low bar isn't met. In other words GAO is okay with you dumping money into a hole as long as you count how much. DOGE is doing a practical audit of the spending. i.e. taking high-level spending principals from trump and identifying specific budget items to eliminate.

tonymet 2y ago
It's worth noting the difference between Budget & expenses since families normally blur the two. Budgets are the plans developed by the President and approved by Congress, and expenses are what actually get spent during the year-- and they vary widely. DOGE's unique approach is to use the Treasury as the "chokepoint" for telemetry so they can cluster and classify all of the transactions . Imagine a massive microservices platform with 10k services and you want to know which ones are viable ( cost/benefit). Rather than survey all 10k, you would surveil a router or LB chokepoint to measure the input & output of all 10k services. That seems to be their approach with the treasury.
- kelnos 2y ago
  One minor nit: while presidents do usually present their version of the ideal budget, Congress is responsible for developing the budget, and what they pass can sometimes look pretty different from what the president proposes.
  - tonymet 2y ago
    Good point
Trasmatta 2y ago
This is propaganda.

TacticalCoder 2y ago

[dead]

T-A 2y ago

Ever seen "Johnny English Strikes Again"? I'm sure Musk did, and is now implementing Jason Volta's plan as just retribution for the not-so-subtle reference hidden in the villain's electric name.

valbaca 2y ago

They're literally accelerationists: They're shooting the gov in the face, so they can enact more emergency powers, and then it's one step to pure, raw fascism. > I'm asking for an answer without political rhetoric You need to start caring about politics real fast if you care at all.

DustinBrett 2y ago
You got your rhetoric as (not) requested.
steve_adams_86 2y ago
There is arguably no non-political angle to this. I’m not sure how you’d describe what appears to be happening without it seeming biased. From here in Canada it looks a lot like the fascist takeovers I’ve read about since middle school. The playbook is bizarrely tight to Hitler, Mussolini, hints of Stalin, etc. I didn’t expect this in my lifetime. Or rather, I imaged I’d see it coming sooner.
- theonething 2y ago
  Hyperbolic hysterics. From here, that's what I observe.
  - steve_adams_86 2y ago
    What would seem like a reasonable, measured response right now? It’s worth adding here too that Musk’s own purported ambitions are entirely political. He has even gone so far as to claim he has given up on democracy. Ironically, he also claimed this election was crucial. DOGE is a politically motivated program. This is all worthy of intense scrutiny and concern
    - theonething 2y ago
      > What would seem like a reasonable, measured response right now? A response to what? I fully support kicking out illegal immigrants and dismantling government agencies that are only wasting taxpayer dollars. When I called out hyperbolic hysterics I mean things like what you said here: "The playbook is bizarrely tight to Hitler, Mussolini, hints of Stalin" These people murdered/executed millions of innocent people. Has Trump come close to executing even one person? That's why it's hard for me to take the Left seriously when they engage in hysterics like this.

TheAlchemist 2y ago

They are playing post-URSS playbook, at 10x the speed. It's fascinating that people still wonder what kind of goals they may be pursuing. The President launched a meme coin 48 hours before being sworn in !!! Even crypto scammers were outraged at the audacity of the scam.

cco 2y ago

> But what is the goal? Maybe what goal to they think they're pursuing? This is hacker news, so I'm asking for an answer without political rhetoric. I'm a bit confused because the stated goals, either the "digestible" ones or the ones they've stated outside of mainstream media, are all political in nature. How could you get an answer about the motivation and goals of this behavior that isn't "political"?

Clubber 2y ago

Cut spending.

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

roland35 2y ago

Look up Curtis Yarvin. This is all his libertarian tech bro fantasy come to life

donutpepperoni 2y ago
Made it easy for anybody who makes it this far: 1. Part one on Curtis Yarvin: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mYrPNvVhKLU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mYrPNvVhKLU 2. Part two: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rpEg4LS3CT0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rpEg4LS3CT0 No affiliation with the show just thought the episodes were enlightening.
- roland35 2y ago
  Behind the Bastards is a great podcast. I think they did a good job bringing this guy's viewpoints to the forefront here, and explaining the context.

Culonavirus 2y ago

> This is hacker news, so I'm asking for an answer without political rhetoric LMAO. That's like going to Reddit and asking for relationship advice.

jrflowers 2y ago

I love this post. “Explain what is going on with the government without mentioning politics. If the reality is that current events and the people involved in them are driven by ideology, invent a version of reality wherein they are not” is like walking into a Sephora, opening up the folding chair that you’re carrying, and loudly demanding the catfish dinner and a beer.

theonething 2y ago

> This is hacker news, so I'm asking for an answer without political rhetoric. Sadly, based on the comments here and elsewhere, HN is not immune to political rhetoric.

pharrington 2y ago

Elon Musk's goal is to gain as much power and control as possible. Line go up.

alluro2 2y ago

Since the goals are not clear for now, let's give Trump and Elon the benefit of the doubt, that what they're doing is from the good of their hearts, for the benefit of all the American people. It's not like they're openly corrupt, narcissistic egomaniacs with history of screwing up people for their personal gain or something. Up till now, especially Trump, they've made huge strides in bettering the country and wellbeing of the people, let's let them cook.